PDA

View Full Version : ADnD Barbarian: destroying magic items



Arros Winhadren
2008-11-09, 04:52 AM
So the text mentions that I get experience as a barbarian if I destroy a magical item. What are the rules for destroying magical items? How does a barbarian go about doing so?

Kurald Galain
2008-11-09, 05:01 AM
You hit things with your axe until they break. Just don't try it on a Staff of the Magi.

Arros Winhadren
2008-11-09, 06:07 AM
I said as much to my DM, but he wasn't buying it. Are there any actual rules in the book?

Matthew
2008-11-09, 07:12 AM
It is doubtful you will find any rules explicitly written for magical items, but destroying items in general is a matter of subjecting them to stress, against which they get a saving throw as described on page 80 of the first edition DMG. Basically, magical items break like non magical items, unless your game master says otherwise.

Say, for instance, that your barbarian wanted to break a sword with his bare hands. You would check his "bend bars" chance, then the sword would get a saving throw against something like "normal blow" or perhaps "crushing blow" (modified by it's plus, so a +5 sword would save on 1 or more).

Basically, you break items in AD&D the way you would do it in the real world.

hamlet
2008-11-10, 08:20 AM
To the best of my knowledge, there are no explicit rules for breaking magic items in any version of AD&D except generally as Matthew described. That would seem the best way.

Things like wands, potions, and similarly fragile items should be a no brainer. A wand can be snapped with ease, a potion smashed or poured out, a statue smashed, etc.

A staff or other more durable item would definately have to be subjected to something more powerful. A sturdy ax could probably cut such an implement apart easily.

Shiels, armour, and weapons might require a much more concerted effort and would likely involve saving throws as such items are designed to be resistant to such types of damage.

The only items that require special methods of destruction (and is generally detailed in the item description) are artifacts. Remember, artifacts in AD&D are much MUCH more than just powerful magic items and destroying one can be the object of months of gaming time.

Thane of Fife
2008-11-10, 08:54 AM
I believe that the 2nd Edition DMG has a small section on ways to break Magic Items - I want to say that it's just before the box on Artifacts. There aren't any hard rules, but it has a number of suggestions - one of which is that many magic items may explode upon destruction, albeit not as much as a Staff of the Magi.

So be careful.

Charity
2008-11-10, 09:19 AM
Most likely to cause party aggro rule ever... utterly pointless, party crippling nonsense, along with the 'cannot associate with spellcasters' gem.

Did anyone play the I'm a barbarian so we are all melee characters rules?
I truely hope not.

bosssmiley
2008-11-10, 09:29 AM
So the text mentions that I get experience as a barbarian if I destroy a magical item. What are the rules for destroying magical items? How does a barbarian go about doing so?

Ritually offer it to the gods by putting it beyond human use. Northern Europeans used to do this by hammering swords into loops, breaking spears and bows, shattering jewellery, tearing clothing and the like. Then they'd throw the ruined objects into pools or rivers. Other cultures might burn their offerings (most of the ancient Middle East) or throw them off cliffs or into caves, sink holes and ravines.

IIRC the only standard rules for destroying magic items in AD&D - apart from the Staff of Power/the Magi, extra-dimensional shenanigans, Spheres of Annihilation, and the arbitrary destruction conditions of artefacts - are the item saving throw tables.

You could just rule that if the barbarian trashes magical items in accordance with the rites of his people that the favour of the gods bestows the appropriate XP upon him.


Most likely to cause party aggro rule ever... utterly pointless, party crippling nonsense, along with the 'cannot associate with spellcasters' gem.

And that's just one example of the HUGE amount of gas-huffing that was going on during the writing of Unearthed Arcana (http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/11/why-unearthed-arcana-sucked.html).

hamlet
2008-11-10, 10:19 AM
I believe that the 2nd Edition DMG has a small section on ways to break Magic Items - I want to say that it's just before the box on Artifacts. There aren't any hard rules, but it has a number of suggestions - one of which is that many magic items may explode upon destruction, albeit not as much as a Staff of the Magi.

So be careful.


It does, and essentially restates what Matthew said. Unless the item is particularly powerful (a super item or artifact) or is particularly resistant to damage (armor or weapons) it's relatively easy to destroy them.

It then goes on to recite some pap about pretty sparkly lights and noises.

Project_Mayhem
2008-11-10, 10:42 AM
And that's just one example of the HUGE amount of gas-huffing that was going on during the writing of Unearthed Arcana.

Wow - I followed the link, read the article, then followed the link to the forum post it was based on ... I'm both scared and awed. I didn't realed 2ed. was so ... hated.



Munchkin: Basically a cheat.

Rules Lawyer: Someone who does not understand that the rules are a guideline to be interpreted by the game master, not the players (at least during the game).

Powergamer/Optimiser: A rules exploiter at the expense of the spirit of the game. The sort of guy who will raise strength at the expense of wisdom, but ignore the implications for how the character probably ought then to be played. Perhaps a better example is a player choosing to be a "fighter/thief/magician" because he doesn't expect the game to go further than one or two sessions.

Each has in common the "pursuit of power" not only for the character, but for the player, which is usually related to a desire to "win D&D". These traits need not necessarily be always bad, but they often are. People sometimes go on about something termed the Stormwind Fallacy with regard to "powergamers", but that is to completely misconstrue the meaning intended.

That made me chuckle compared to the more popular 'Tippy-eque' view on this forum. Also, loving the 'Uber-Grognard' there Matthew.

On topic, I have a pdf of UA, and I also thought the barbarian was a bit difficult to integrate. If I had a player wanting to use one I'd probably waive the restrictions slightly - use them as rp guidelines.

bosssmiley
2008-11-10, 10:52 AM
Wow - I followed the link, read the article, then followed the link to the forum post it was based on ... I'm both scared and awed.

As any student of Lovecraft kno, this is entirely the correct response to discovery of the hidden world of the Elder Grogs. We expect to find you gibbering in a corner with eldritch sigils ("THAC0", "AC -6", "+3hp/lvl") and lunatic invocations ("save vs. rod", "number appearing: 40-400") scrawled on the walls in your own blood by morning. :smallamused:

Matthew: causes 1d6/2d6 SAN damage :smalltongue:

Project_Mayhem
2008-11-10, 10:56 AM
Um ... as an aside, I couldn't find any mention of THACO anywhere in my 1ed. books. Was it a 2ed. idea? How does it relate to the tables?

LibraryOgre
2008-11-10, 11:05 AM
Wow - I followed the link, read the article, then followed the link to the forum post it was based on ... I'm both scared and awed. I didn't realed 2ed. was so ... hated.

The 2nd edition hate comes from a few things. In the case of 1st edition advocates, it is often associated with the shabby treatment Gary Gygax got at the hands of TSR's new management, and a shift away from modules (which only the DM buys, and not always then) to player-oriented supplements (which many more people will buy).

In the case of advocates of D&D (Mentzer, Holmes, Rules Cyclopedia, etc.), it's usually seen as being overly complicated.

In the case of d20 advocates, there's often an element of seeing it as over-complicated and restrictive (the second of which I can't really agree with). The usual arguments are "OMG, ThAC0 is teh suX0rz", "y cant my fighter do teh sneaky?" and "wiz0rds cant cast enuff!" That's probably a bit prejudicial towards their arguments, but I'm not feeling charitable at the moment.

2nd edition advocates tend to prefer it over 1st edition (with which it is 100% compatible) because the language is clearer, and a few of more annoying rules have been cleared up (surprise is simplified, for example). It is in some ways simpler than 1st edition (the aforementioned surprise, weapon v. armor reduced to type v. armor, punching and grappling reduced to a table, ThAC0 instead of combat matricies), but usually in the interest of clarity.

One thing I find is that 2nd edition groups tend to be very variable in what they use. I spent most of my 2nd edition years (ended due to lack of a group) using Core Book + Combat and Tactics. The DM didn't like the Complete Handbooks (though he'd use some of the supplemental rules in them), didn't like Skills and Powers, and Spells and Magic came a bit late.

But, yes, the Barbarian rules in 1e's UA were stupid.

hamlet
2008-11-10, 11:11 AM
The 2nd edition hate comes from a few things. In the case of 1st edition advocates, it is often associated with the shabby treatment Gary Gygax got at the hands of TSR's new management, and a shift away from modules (which only the DM buys, and not always then) to player-oriented supplements (which many more people will buy).

In the case of advocates of D&D (Mentzer, Holmes, Rules Cyclopedia, etc.), it's usually seen as being overly complicated.

In the case of d20 advocates, there's often an element of seeing it as over-complicated and restrictive (the second of which I can't really agree with). The usual arguments are "OMG, ThAC0 is teh suX0rz", "y cant my fighter do teh sneaky?" and "wiz0rds cant cast enuff!" That's probably a bit prejudicial towards their arguments, but I'm not feeling charitable at the moment.

2nd edition advocates tend to prefer it over 1st edition (with which it is 100% compatible) because the language is clearer, and a few of more annoying rules have been cleared up (surprise is simplified, for example). It is in some ways simpler than 1st edition (the aforementioned surprise, weapon v. armor reduced to type v. armor, punching and grappling reduced to a table, ThAC0 instead of combat matricies), but usually in the interest of clarity.

One thing I find is that 2nd edition groups tend to be very variable in what they use. I spent most of my 2nd edition years (ended due to lack of a group) using Core Book + Combat and Tactics. The DM didn't like the Complete Handbooks (though he'd use some of the supplemental rules in them), didn't like Skills and Powers, and Spells and Magic came a bit late.

But, yes, the Barbarian rules in 1e's UA were stupid.


AD&D 2e is the red headed step child of D&D.

If there's any one thing beyond the enjoyment of RPG's that Grognards and 3e advocates can agree on it's that 2e just plain old stank.

We few outspoken 2e adherents just absorb abuse on a regular basis, and it intimates strange things about our lives . . .

Charity
2008-11-10, 11:15 AM
I got an infraction for coining that phrase Hamlet, I'd swap it for something else mate.

Matthew
2008-11-10, 11:16 AM
Wow - I followed the link, read the article, then followed the link to the forum post it was based on ... I'm both scared and awed. I didn't realed 2ed. was so ... hated.

To be fair, most of the hate comes from equating 2e with "railroads" generally, "Dragonlance" in particular, and the end of sand box play as the default methodology.



That made me chuckle compared to the more popular 'Tippy-eque' view on this forum. Also, loving the 'Uber-Grognard' there Matthew.

Ta! :smallbiggrin:



On topic, I have a pdf of UA, and I also thought the barbarian was a bit difficult to integrate. If I had a player wanting to use one I'd probably waive the restrictions slightly - use them as rp guidelines.

Yeah, most of the Unearthed Arcana classes are problematic. The book was a rush job to bail TSR out of a financial disaster.



As any student of Lovecraft kno, this is entirely the correct response to discovery of the hidden world of the Elder Grogs. We expect to find you gibbering in a corner with eldritch sigils ("THAC0", "AC -6", "+3hp/lvl") and lunatic invocations ("save vs. rod", "number appearing: 40-400") scrawled on the walls in your own blood by morning. :smallamused:

Matthew: causes 1d6/2d6 SAN damage :smalltongue:

Ha! Well, I hope I can still beat a spiked chain with those stats!



Um ... as an aside, I couldn't find any mention of THACO anywhere in my 1ed. books. Was it a 2ed. idea? How does it relate to the tables?

THAC0 corresponds to the tables, more or less. So, if you look at a first level fighter and note what he needs to hit armour class 0 according ot the table, you will find the answer is 20 [i.e. THAC0 20]. The key differences are that:

1) 5% increments for fighters is an optional rule (10% per two levels is the default)
2) "1" is not an automatic miss
3) "20" is not an automatic hit, though the tables consider it a hit for up to five armour classes better than what you could ordinarily hit with a 20 [e.g. a 20 will hit if you need 20-25 according to 2e THAC0].

You can find THAC0 in the first edition DMG appendix that briefly lists all the monster statistics.

hamlet
2008-11-10, 11:23 AM
I got an infraction for coining that phrase Hamlet, I'd swap it for something else mate.

Changed, though in all honesty, handing out infractions over that rather inoccuous term which I put in great big quotes anyways is more than a little silly.

hamlet
2008-11-10, 11:27 AM
To be fair, most of the hate comes from equating 2e with "railroads" generally, "Dragonlance" in particular, and the end of sand box play as the default methodology.


Ta! :smallbiggrin:


Yeah, most of the Unearthed Arcana classes are problematic. The book was a rush job to bail TSR out of a financial disaster.


THAC0 corresponds to the tables, more or less. So, if you look at a first level fighter and note what he needs to hit armour class 0 according ot the table, you will find the answer is 20 [i.e. THAC0 20]. The key differences are that:

1) 5% increments for fighters is an optional rule (10% per two levels is the default)
2) "1" is not an automatic miss
3) "20" is not an automatic hit, though the tables consider it a hit for up to five armour classes better than what you could ordinarily hit with a 20 [e.g. a 20 will hit if you need 20-25 according to 2e THAC0].

You can find THAC0 in the first edition DMG appendix that briefly lists all the monster statistics.

It's also of note that, IIRC (haven't looked at the 2e DMG in a while) that a natural 20 in combat was an automatic hit as an optional rule.

Charity
2008-11-10, 11:27 AM
Just saving you the Agg matey...
I thought I was being witty... turns out not so much.

Hey Matt, have you dun your thing? Or do I still need to chase you off with a stick?

Tsk tsk *waves stick*

Matthew
2008-11-10, 11:29 AM
It's also of note that, IIRC (haven't looked at the 2e DMG in a while) that a natural 20 in combat was an automatic hit as an optional rule.

Nah, that's a default rule; the automatic hit/miss convention was carried over from Moldvay/Mentzer BD&D.



Hey Matt, have you dun your thing? Or do I still need to chase you off with a stick?

Um... *Runs away!* (ask me again at the end of the month, nearly there!)

LibraryOgre
2008-11-10, 12:10 PM
AD&D 2e is the red headed step child of D&D.

If there's any one thing beyond the enjoyment of RPG's that Grognards and 3e advocates can agree on it's that 2e just plain old stank.

We few outspoken 2e adherents just absorb abuse on a regular basis, and it intimates strange things about our lives . . .

I was married for six years to a red-headed Italian. My life wouldn't feel right without verbal abuse and people questioning my judgment.

hamlet
2008-11-10, 01:54 PM
I was married for six years to a red-headed Italian. My life wouldn't feel right without verbal abuse and people questioning my judgment.

I envy you sir . . .